Richard Diamond

This case concerns a motion to change a 2015 consent order regarding child support and parenting.

The primary issues were retroactive child support for 2020, 2021, and 2023, and the father's contribution to private school expenses for 2022-2023.

The court found the father failed to prove 40% parenting time for 2020, ordering retroactive support.

For 2021, the court included the father's significant income from stock option proceeds ($7.5M) for child support purposes, as mandated by Schedule III of the Ontario Child Support Guidelines.

However, applying Section 4 of the Guidelines for high-income earners, the court deemed the full Table amount inappropriate, finding it would constitute an impermissible wealth transfer to the mother.

Instead, the court ordered retroactive support based on doubling the child's budget for that year.

The father was also ordered to contribute to private school tuition, as his withdrawal of consent was deemed unreasonable.

The court also adjusted child support for 2022 and 2023 based on actual parenting time and income.

The applicant sought a divorce and judgment in accordance with a marriage contract signed in 1991.

The respondent husband sought to set aside the marriage contract, claiming inadequate financial disclosure, lack of understanding, duress, and unconscionability, or alternatively, rectification of a unilateral mistake regarding his entitlement to the matrimonial home's increased value.

The court dismissed the respondent's claims, finding he was aware of the applicant's assets, received independent legal advice, and faced no duress or exploitation.

The marriage contract was upheld, and the respondent was ordered to pay $85,000 in costs.

The appellant father appealed the dismissal of his motion to vary an existing child residency schedule to achieve equal parenting time.

The motion judge found that the father failed to establish a material change in circumstances under the Gordon v. Goertz test, despite the child's advancing age, the mother's remarriage, and the child's learning disability diagnosis.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's application of the legal test or her assessment of the evidence.

After a family law trial in which the respondent’s motion to change parenting arrangements was dismissed, the parties were unable to agree on costs.

The successful party sought full recovery costs of over $84,000 based on Rule 18 offers to settle under the Family Law Rules.

The court held that the applicant’s final offer satisfied the requirements of Rule 18(14), entitling her to costs to the date of the offer and full recovery thereafter unless the court ordered otherwise.

Considering the factors under Rule 24(11), including success, reasonableness of behaviour, offers to settle, and proportionality of time spent, the court reduced the amount sought as excessive.

The court fixed fair and reasonable costs at $58,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements.